Ssb - who is the greatest?

[wildJONESEYE]

Regardings standards, it's the same issue with people looking for the next Ronnie O'Sullivan. When O'Sullivan has hit top form, a la the Masters final with Ding or the WC semi against Hendry, there's very little room for improvement because he almost never misses, knocks in centuries in a matter of minutes, the odd 147 for good measure, cueball on a string etc. I've always wondered what Ronnie's practice game is like, because if he thinks he brnings his B game to the table, he must be hitting 147s every frame.

The one thing I find interesting about snooker is that it's about the only sport I can think of where the greatest of all time tag is not attached to a player from 50 years ago or more: boxing had Sugar Ray Robinson, tennis has Laver, golf has Nicklaus, whereas snooker the greatest of all time is almost indisputably between Hendry and Davis.

its between Hendry and nobody....

[deant1982]

its between Hendry and nobody....

Hahaha. Love it!
I have to agree, as I also think Hendry is the greatest of all time. There are some I consider close to him (Davis, Higgins), but not above. I just love the direct, abrupt, and flat out blunt way you state this is genius! I actually laughed out loud at this one.

[wildJONESEYE]

i think you have great champions like Davis,Reardon,Higgins etc then you have great talents like Ronnie,Jimmy etc.

Stephen Hendry played the game in the carefree confidence of Ronnie with the dedication and atitute of Davis.= the greatest player ever.

[gavpowell]

its between Hendry and nobody....

Davis has better sportsmanship and has won matches well into his 40s and 50s, clawing his way back into the top 16 well after his prime had gone. Hendry threw a sulk every time he looked like dropping out of the top 16.

[deant1982]

i think you have great champions like Davis,Reardon,Higgins etc then you have great talents like Ronnie,Jimmy etc.

Stephen Hendry played the game in the carefree confidence of Ronnie with the dedication and atitute of Davis.= the greatest player ever.

I disagree!
Hendry was confident, but he certainly wasn't carefree. He knew and trusted that he was better than everyone else, and was continually driven to raise his game when it was needed. I think the only time I've seen him carefree was the shootout thing where it was 10 mins per frame, and even then..........

[wildJONESEYE]

I disagree!
Hendry was confident, but he certainly wasn't carefree. He knew and trusted that he was better than everyone else, and was continually driven to raise his game when it was needed. I think the only time I've seen him carefree was the shootout thing where it was 10 mins per frame, and even then..........

nobody and i repeat nobody played the game more confidently and atacking than hendry used to.

[deant1982]

Davis has better sportsmanship and has won matches well into his 40s and 50s, clawing his way back into the top 16 well after his prime had gone. Hendry threw a sulk every time he looked like dropping out of the top 16.

Maybe, but being a better sport doesn't make you a better player. The old saying is the nice guys finish last, and although I don't doubt both are nice guys, at their best, they were both as ruthless as each other, both intend on annahilating whoever was put in their path. Hendry was always a sulky bugger, and he always looked miserable when he was playing, whether he was winning or losing. It doesn't detract from the fact he was the greatest ever.

Davis still playing at such a high level is remarkable though, and he deserves all the plaudits he gets for doing this, but just because you play to a high level when you're 53 or whatever, doesn't make you the best ever either. Davis even ranks John Higgins above himself in a best ever list, so I doubt he wouldn't class Hendry there as well.
To slightly alter a Brian Clough quote - I wouldn't say Hendry is the best player ever, but he is in the top 1!

[deant1982]

nobody and i repeat nobody played the game more confidently and atacking than hendry used to.

Agreed. But it wasn't carefree. Carefree implies he took on stupidly risky shots and went for everything, bugger the consequences style, which is not the case. He worked his way into a position to attack the correct shot, and was very attacking and aggressive from that point onwards.

[wildJONESEYE]

Agreed. But it wasn't carefree. Carefree implies he took on stupidly risky shots and went for everything, bugger the consequences style, which is not the case. He worked his way into a position to attack the correct shot, and was very attacking and aggressive from that point onwards.

ok

but my point is Hendry was never in one catogorie of player to the other he played the atacking game of Ronnie with the dedication of Steve .....

no other player has ever had that mixture+ the success.

[attilahun]

If we consider world titles then Joe Davis is the greatest by a mile. If we consider the player who was best against the strongest field then it should be John Higgins, who won 3 in the last 5 years, when the field is the strongest ever.
If Joe Davis 20 titles are less an achievement compared to Hendry 7 titles because of the strength of the other players, then J. Higgins 4 titles are more important then Hendry 7 titles, because he won them when the standard was highest.

[Odrl]

If we consider the player who was best against the strongest field then it should be John Higgins, who won 3 in the last 5 years, when the field is the strongest ever.

I usually stay away from this topic, because I can't possibly know how good some of the players were at their peak. But I would still have to disagree with this statement...

Even in the time I've been following snooker religiously, the standard has dropped a bit at the top of the game. I think the period between 2008 and 2010, which had the likes of Ryan Day, Marco Fu and Ali Carter ranked in the top8, was weaker than a couple of years previously. These players, along with Stephen Hendry, were not really challenging for titles the way you would expect from top8 players.

If you look at the current rankings, the top8 looks much stronger, with no real weak link. I think it's the strongest for a couple of years, but it's still doubtful whether any player is on the level of the very top players from 10 years ago.

As for the WC, I actually don't think the standard of snooker needed to win it has been particularly high these last few years. Higgins played great stuff in 2009, but he was arguably on his B-game for most of 2007 and 2011. I thought Robertson wasn't at his best in 2010 either, especially if you compare it to his play at the Grand Prix earlier that season.

Of course it's a different story lower down the rankings. There always seems to be a number of tricky players such as Gould or Liang who appear at last32 stages as qualifiers.

[gavpowell]

ust because you play to a high level when you're 53 or whatever, doesn't make you the best ever either. Davis even ranks John Higgins above himself in a best ever list, so I doubt he wouldn't class Hendry there as well.

No, but all of those taken together over a career like Davis's are enought to put him into contention. you can't take Davis's view of the greatest ever seriously either, because he changes with every interview - sometimes Alex was the only true snooker genius, sometimes it's Ronnie, etc.

[trains]

If you look at the current rankings, the top8 looks much stronger, with no real weak link. I think it's the strongest for a couple of years, but it's still doubtful whether any player is on the level of the very top players from 10 years ago.

As for the WC, I actually don't think the standard of snooker needed to win it has been particularly high these last few years. Higgins played great stuff in 2009, but he was arguably on his B-game for most of 2007 and 2011. I thought Robertson wasn't at his best in 2010 either, especially if you compare it to his play at the Grand Prix earlier that season.

The 'big 4' term that came out around 00 makes it look like the standard then was better as they might have met more in the latter stages,it doesnt mean the tournaments then were better than now,Trump Ding Selby Robertson Maguire Dott Murphy are all better 'non big 4' and playing better than anyone else outside that 4 in say 2001 with the possible exception of Matthew Stevens.
Higgins Selby 07 and Higgins Trump 11 were as good as any world final between say 98 and 03.Plus Williams had a cakewalk 03 semi which I doubt he'd get a sniff at now.

[wildJONESEYE]

the way i look at it is quite simple had John Higgins 2011 World Champion faced Hendry playing like he was around 1994 in this years Tournament there is no way on earth John would have won the title you can only beat the players you face at the time.

[trains]

the way i look at it is quite simple had John Higgins 2011 World Champion faced Hendry playing like he was around 1994 in this years Tournament there is no way on earth John would have won the title you can only beat the players you face at the time.

Probably Jimmy's best snooker at the Crucible was 98,ROS cleaned him out in the qf and its forgotten because it wasnt a surprise.Your making the assertion 94 Hendry would get through ROS and MJ re 2011 qf and semi not to mention he has snooker on an intravenous drip and hasnt won one of the big 3 since 99,heck yeah all day and twice on sundays ;-)